>
> But, although I admire your technical expertise in your
> Moosification(s), I can't help feeling that "What Moose would do" is
> again too harsh. I recognise, of course, that you are free to enjoy
> your own expression or interpretation, but as a rule I prefer the
> tonal softness of the original. I enjoy the adjusted tonality of
> highlight or shadow, but the last one is just too "edgy" (I can't
> think of another word to describe how I feel about it).
>
I'm not kicking Moose, here. I think his observations and interpretations
are extremely valid. However, the tonal display as expressed in the
original may be what the photographer or artist or photographer/artist
intended to express.
For example, my recent B&W photo of the building where several people wrote
considerable angst about the high-key approach encouraged me to return to
the image and redo it to satisfy the desires of those who expressed such
discomfort. Unfortunately, even though the blowouts were resolved, the
"message" or "emotional intent" of the image was lost. It became just
another study in "Ooo, a B&W picture". I had purposefully created a
high-key image, but unfortunately, the editing environment was too bright
and I misjudged the final output. In correcting the image, I attempted to
fix this issue but also apply further adjustment to address the concerns of
the critics. The final result is an image that is somebody else's, not my
own. I am displeased with the result and feel no satisfaction in the image
at all and tempted to just delete it. It's not my photograph anymore.
I am not suggesting that my particular photograph was beyond reproach--after
all, if I didn't want the approval of my peers, I wouldn't have shown the
picture in the first place! But we much be very careful to seperate
technical assistance from artistic alteration. It would be like me telling
Chris Crawford that his photograph of the cat would be so much better if he
altered the framing so it was about the curtain instead.
There is a distinct "California Look" of which Moose is definitely a
purveyer of. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this look, but I'm
reminded that South Western American artworks don't sell well in Iowa and
Iowa artworks wouldn't sell well in Sante Fe. Much of this has to do with
quality of natural daylight where we all live. For instance, throughout
much of the American West, there is little to no haze (or even
cloud-cover). There is an edginess and contrast to the natural landscape
which isn't present in the Eastern States, nor in the Brittish Isles. It
would be extremely wrong to apply the "California Look" to a foggy moody
scene. And it would be also extremely wrong to apply a soft, mid-tone only
contrasting to an image of our American West. It just doesn't fit.
Back to my B&W image, I purposefully blew out the background because I
didn't want the background to contain visual information to compete with the
building and foreground vegitation. This was absolutely my artistic intent.
Unfortunately, instead of accepting this artistic intent and allowing the
eyes to study the rest of the scene, we hyper-analyzed the photograph for
the fact that it contained a "technical flaw" based on "modern dynamic-range
think". How is this any different than Ansel Adams' "Monolith" which has a
blacked out sky? Shall we criticize AA because the sky went too dark and
indicated a "flaw" in the expression of proper dynamic range?
But none of this is new. We've had these issues with peer review since the
days of cave drawings.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|